John English

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill and to respond to some of the comments made by the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the member for Elk Island.

The amendment moved by the member for Carleton-Gloucester is a constructive amendment which the government accepts. It is the kind of amendment which contributes to the nature of the bill in recognizing that regional interest must be served.

We do not think, however, that regional interest should be served specifically in the bill on a national basis. The member for Carleton-Gloucester moved that regional interest be recognized on a local basis in the national capital region. That seems appropriate, but regional representation is only one element of the qualifications for boards and agencies.

In a broader sense the amendments offered by the member for Elk Island and the members of the Bloc Quebecois fall under two categories. The first is that the provinces must play a larger role in appointments. Appointments made by the federal government under federal government legislation should be subject to provincial approval.

The point raised by the member for Elk Island is a very sensible one. This is a cumbersome, costly and time consuming process. Moreover, reciprocity does not exist. The provincial governments do not offer the capacity for the federal government to approve provincial government appointments made by their lieutenant governor in council. Surely some reciprocity on this basis must exist.

In this respect the bill is to simplify federal government agencies. It is part of a process begun in the budget of February 1994. What has occurred since that time is that we have eliminated 150 patronage positions with the bill. This is the first stage of agency review. The second stage will take place later in the fall and it will eliminate 350 so-called patronage positions.

When we look at the total numbers, this is the first time I can recall since the second world war that there has been any reduction in patronage positions. This is a radical reduction and it is something to be commended.

The member for Joliette said that the reduction amounts to only $4 million. I am sure the member for Elk Island will agree that this is not a meagre amount. It is a significant contribution and it is a pattern for the process the government is going through under agency review and in the budget itself.

In terms of the standing committees the Bloc amendments tend to emphasize the need for standing committees to approve of the appointments. The standing orders currently allow committees to review appointments made by the governor in council to non-judicial bodies.

We are not seeking to revise the parliamentary system in the bill. Certainly in terms of standing committees there may need to be in the future some revision in the work they do. However, in this bill we are working to simplify, we are working to do it quickly, and we are working to deal with what we have now. In that respect the amendments offered are not constructive at this time.

I emphasize that this is a bill to simplify government, to make it more efficient, and to fulfil the aims we have expressed in the red book and in the budget.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made on these amendments.

[Canada Labour Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the House on an issue of concern to the government, essential services.

There has been much debate on this topic in other jurisdictions as it applies to their labour environment. I am sure that everyone here appreciates that the federal government is a unique employer, one which has a trusted mandate to ensure that Canadians can be confident in the delivery of government services.

The Public Service Staff Relations Act is a balanced piece of legislation, one which has assisted the parties involved in complex labour disputes for over one-quarter of a century. It should be remembered that it was due to the leadership of a Liberal government that federal workers gained the right to collective bargaining.

However, it was also recognized at that time, and still holds true today, that the right to collective bargaining in the federal public service cannot be to the detriment of the health, safety and security of the Canadian public.

Over the years most labour disputes have been resolved satisfactorily without the need for back to work legislation. It should be noted that the government, as a matter of practice, discourages the hiring of outside workers to do the work of striking employees. In fact, the current policy of the employer on this matter is to rely on managers and staff excluded from the bargaining unit.

It is also important to recognize that the government has never denied the right of individual employees to voluntarily come to work during a strike.

As I have already indicated, the federal government cannot be compared to employers in other sectors. The business of providing government services to Canadian citizens can never be considered in a similar context to the private sector company, one which provides shoes or soap or flour.

There are many services provided by the federal government for which there is no viable alternative. There is a wide range of services which many of us take for granted until that moment when they become delayed or are not forthcoming. For example, we depend on and have confidence in our meat inspectors and officers involved in numerous other federally inspected consumer goods. Moreover, we rely on the transportation systems, the patrolling of offshore and coastal fisheries and the vigilance of officers at border crossings. Individuals on fixed incomes, the unemployed and senior citizens depend on the uninterrupted delivery of social programs.

Without the careful analysis of the effects of new drugs and medications being produced for human and animal use, the health of Canadians could be at risk. I am sure that each of you here could add other areas that I have not mentioned.

As members can see, government services are vital to the health and security of the public. The present language of the Public Service Staff Relations Act ensures that areas essential to the health and safety of Canadians are safeguarded by designating positions which by law cannot strike before any legal strike activity begins.

What this means is that the employer must identify the positions that are essential to the health and safety of the public three months prior to the notice to bargain and three months prior to the expiration of the collective agreement. Therefore, there is at least a six month advance notice as to the positions that are to be designated.

The current process has worked since 1967. As recently as 1993, when reviewing proposed changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the House in its wisdom saw fit to allow this process to continue.

All of this reinforces the fact that the federal government requires a unique legislated labour framework that is different from

other employers in order to ensure delivery of services regardless of labour difficulties that must eventually be overcome.

In addition, it should be realized by all concerned members of the House that the legislation must be reviewed in its totality. It is not advisable to tinker piecemeal with individual sections of an act. Many portions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act were drafted for a specific purpose and for special reasons and must be viewed in balance with each other.

The designation of essential services, for example, which is at issue here, was specifically developed to permit the notion of the right for federal government employees to strike. It also served to allow the government as the employer to cede the right to lock out employees.

In closing, I must caution my colleagues on the wisdom of proceeding with the bill as it relates to the Public Service Staff Relations Act without fully appreciating the history and the experience behind this important existing legislation.

[National Public Service Week, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this week, June 11 to June 17, is National Public Service Week.

A prominent politician once remarked:

Public servants serve you right; indeed, often, they serve you better than your apathy and indifference deserve.

During this week Canadians should note the valued role that public servants play through the services they deliver.

The government recognizes and supports an efficient and strong public service. At a time when we are re-examining the role of government, public servants in my riding of Kitchener and throughout Canada are rising to the challenge to assist in tailoring a system that more effectively meets the needs of today's Canadians.

The excellence of the public service of Canada is recognized worldwide. I wish to extend my gratitude to all public servants who have offered services to Canadians in a manner second to none. I remain confident and look forward to a public service with a more defined role that is more satisfying, fulfilling and challenging for the 21st century.

[Ontario Election, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, George Orwell once said that most revolutionaries are potential Tories because they imagine that everything can be put to rights by altering the shape of society.

It seems that Mike Harris and his Tories are making every effort to alter our health care system with the doublespeak of their so-called common sense revolution. Tory economic policies will never work without dire consequences to the province's health care system. The common sense revolution is really the nonsense revolution.

The Ontario Tories are promising something they cannot deliver. If they are prepared to impose a $400 million health care tax hike to cover just one of their tax promises, imagine what will remain of our health care system when the revolution is complete.

This government and the Ontario Liberal Party are committed to preserving an accessible, universal, and affordable health care system, one that does not require tax grabs or taking us into uncharted waters. We do not want and will never accept a Canada and an Ontario where there is one health care system for the rich and one for the poor.

Mike Harris' revolution is-

[V-E Day, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1940s young men and women left Canada's farms and factories, villages and cities to fight a war that had to be fought. They were young men and women like Earl Grummett, who fought from D-Day's beaches to Holland along the Maple Leaf route; like Stanley Kudoba, who spent the war's last hours fighting the enemy in a small Dutch village; or like Lottie Kosiorek, who was freed from a forced labour camp.

Today we celebrate those who triumphed over Nazism and fascism 50 years ago. How thrilling it was for us to hear the Dutch Prime Minister say on Saturday, "Thank you, Canadians, from the bottoms of our hearts".

These men and women were the glory of their times. Let us honour them today in our times for the great deeds they did for all of us.

[Legal Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa West has long been recognized as one of the most creative and inspired thinkers in the area of public service renewal. That spirit animated the question we have heard tonight.

I should like to respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa West. It is true we are downsizing the public service, but the government has given a pledge that during the downsizing it will keep involuntary layoffs to an absolute minimum. I assure the hon. member that the government will keep that pledge.

Let me reiterate the government's commitment to deal with employees in the fairest and most sensitive way possible, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa West. It is particularly important to express our determination to continue to work with the unions and with local governments to ease the transition.

Finally let me say that we hope to keep layoffs and the number of employees on unpaid surplus status to an absolute minimum. Some individuals will be accommodated through normal attrition. Others may take advantage of the early departure and early retirement incentives announced by the President of the Treasury Board. The hon. member is aware of the $2.25 million program for displaced public servants in the national capital region who are seeking employment.

The government will continue its program review because it believes that with all other problems still to be solved it is the only way to allocate resources properly. However I strongly reiterate that the government also believes, as does the hon. member, in public service renewal.

With the new government policies we hope for a role for the public service that is much more satisfying, much more fulfilling and much more challenging than it ever has been.

[Government Appointments, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate that it is a change of process where the numbers are one-third of what they were before.

We are changing the acts to make the processes fairer. All appointments are advertised in the Canada Gazette and we look at competence and merit in our appointments.

[Government Appointments, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The agency review announced yesterday that the number of governor in council appointments were reduced greatly. To clarify the situation, between November 1993 and the beginning of February the Government of Canada appointed approximately 700 persons to governor in council positions. It was actually 100 less than that because 600 were new appointments. The

previous government had appointed 1,819 in the same period. In effect we have reduced the appointments by two-thirds.

[Government Expenditures, February 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member and my colleagues opposite that overlap and duplication seriously impair the efficiency of our federation. Fortunately we are making some real progress.

We have concluded agreements with the provincial government in 60 cases where we have made commitments. In these 60 cases, we have eliminated the overlap and duplication that raise costs for government in such areas as food inspection, drug prosecution, environmental management and, the member for Simcoe Centre will be glad to know, the Canada-Ontario Business Centre. Canada works best when it works together.